Remember, I think from a design point of view. I say "for some reason
there's an Area 2" because I think it's a bad design not because I was
surprised to see it there in the show output. ;-) But thanks for replying,
because it made me question my expectations.
Here's what part of the network design looks like:
---R2---Area-1-ISDN----R8---Area-1-Ethernet
|
Area 0 |
Ethernet |
|
---R1---Area-1-Frame Relay---R9---Area-2-Ethernet
When I did a "show ip route" on R9 and R8 I thought I would see the
Ethernet LAN in Area 0. That was not a logical expectation? I should just
see a default route on ABRs?
Thanks.
Priscilla
At 07:09 PM 2/4/02, s vermill wrote:
>Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> >
> > There was a virtual link. The virtual link was from R1 over to
> > another
> > router across the Frame Relay cloud. R1 is an ABR connecting
> > Area 0 and
> > Area 1. Area 0 is the Ethernet LAN. Area 1 is the Frame Relay
> > cloud. For
> > some unknown reason, there's an Area 2 also on the other side
> > of Area 1.
> > Does that ring a bell regarding any gotchas?
>
>Priscilla,
>
>There must be at least three areas involved in a virtual link. So I am
>intrigued by the phantom area 2. What area were you expecting to see on the
>other side of area 1? In your case, it seems as if the ABRs are directly
>connected. That is to say, the transit area is in essence a p-t-p
>connection. That isn't always necessarily the case so I don't think OSPF
>makes any kind of distinction. As I understand it, the virtual
>connection/tunnel is treated like an unnumbered one. So the network
>statements have to be in place for the transit area in both routers, area 0
>in the backbone ABR, and the discontiguous area in the discontiguous ABR.
>So that is the basis for my interest in your phantom area 2.
>
>Of course, this doesn't seem to be in any way related to why you wouldn't be
>able to see the area 0 network across the ISDN connection. The interesting
>parallel is that virtual links and demand circuits are both treated the
>same. That is, the DNA bit is set for routes learned via either one. So is
>there anything in your setup not consistent with having DNA show up in the
>topo table? I can't imagine what but I have never tried anything like your
>setup.
>
>Tough one!
>
>Scott
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34421&t=34379
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
